Excerpts from Clement Scott's interview for the evangelical periodical 'Great Thoughts' - 1st January, 1898
If anyone I loved insisted on going on stage contrary to my advice, I should be terrified for her future, hopeless for the endurance of her affection, or even our friendship. For stage life, according to my experiences, has a tendency to deaden the finer feelings and crush the inner nature of men and women, to substitute artificiality and hollowness for sincerity and truth. I speak from intimate experience with the stage, extending over thirty-seven years. Of course, I refer now to the inner life of the theatre, that which goes on behind the scenes.
In dealing with this inner life I leave out all references to what I may term the 'theatrical families' of the stage - those well-known people of generations of play actors. They are like doctors and artists, to whom the whole thing is a matter of trainingfor the profession. They either do not notice or are unaffected by what, perhaps, comes as a shock to the novice. I speak, rather, of and to the hundreds of young people, especially of the opposite sex, who have an unhealthy craving for matters theatrical.
It is really impossible for a woman to remain pure who adopts the stage as a profession. Everything is against her. The freedom of life, speech and gesture which is the rule behind the curtain render it almost impossible for a woman to preserve the simplicity of manner which is her greatest charm. Her whole life is artificial and unnatural to the last degree. Therefore it is an unhealthy life to live.
But there are far more serious evils to be encountered than those.The drawbacks mentioned are things that render it impossible for a lady to remain a lady. But what is infinitely more to be deplored is that a woman who endevours to keep her purity is almost of necessity foredoomed to failure in her career.
It is an awful thing to say, but no one who knows the life of the green room will dare to deny it. More I need not say. I could give chapter and verse for my authority by the dozen, but it would not be very savoury reading. All that I can say is that I marvel at any mother who allows her daughter to take up a theatrical career.
Still more I am astounded that any man should calmy endure his wife to become an actress, unnacompanied by himself. He must either be a fool or a knave. Nor do I see how any woman is to escape contamination in one form or another. Temptation surrounds her in every shape and on every side. Her prospects frequently depend upon nature - and the extent of her compliance, and, after all, human nature is very weak.
Two things that I want to be made clear: First, that it is quite possible to lead a good life on the stage. Thousands of people do. Miss Blank, for instance, is as good a woman as ever lived. But the fact that many people do lead good lives does not remove the great temptations from their weaker brethren. Second, that I am not a canting prig, or a Pharisee, who makes broad his phylacteries. Thank God I am as other men are. The temptations of the stage have been quite as bad for me as for anyone else, if not more. It would disorder any life, shipwreck any temperament, however religious, to have your whold mind devoted to showy and alluring things for thirty seven years.
The worst of the theatrical profession is that it induces vain and egotistical ideas in all of us to a degree scarcely credited by an outsider. Actors, and very particularly actresses, can not hear a word of dispraise.
. . . . . . .
I have received letters literally by the hundred in the last thirty years, full of the foulest abuse, which bear the names of some of the best known theatre people of the day. How I could be revenged if I were to publish them! But it only goes to prove the truthfulness of what I say - that no school on earth is bad for the formation of character, or so readily, quickly and evitably draws out all the worst in a man or a woman as the stage.
And I think the English stage is the worst; for, as a matter of fact, the English are the least artificial people, and are more completely without the saving grace of humour than any nation in the world, and so the more readily make themselves ridiculous.
. . . . . . .
I am sorry that one has to utterly condemn all hope of union between religion and the stage, but as things stand, it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. Many of our ablest actors and actresses would be only too glad if it were possible to bring about such a union, but they one and all recognise the hopelessness of making the attempt. Not even the Church and Stage Guild will ever bring it about.
What I have said will probably give great offence to certain people, but they are just the people I should not care about in the least; and, after all, no one will put the cap on unless it fits. If they do find that it fits, they will at least have the good worldly sense to keep such a fact to themselves.
I, as a man of the world, agree with the Puritan party, that religion and the stage have nothing in common. Indeed I go further and say that the one would weaken the other. The stage is of the earth, earthly and very earthy. The church is spritual, or is supposed to be. No one in his senses really believes the church influences the stage, while it is patent to the most casual onlooker that a union would not in the least benefit the church.
Cardinal Manning, at one end of the religious scale, hated the theatre. The Puritan, Wesleyan or Baptist minister detests it. At the other end the philosophical man of the world, with an equal knowledge of human nature, stands between them and says they are both right.
It has been very well said that science and religion run upon parallel lines, but that they will never meet. The same statement, in another sense, is true of religion and the stage. They are, and they must ever remain, as widely seperated as the poles themselves.
Clement Scott was a popular and influential drama critic for the Daily Telegraph in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Born on 6th October, 1841, he was the son of William Scott, the vicar of Hoxton, and following a common school education became a civil servant working in the War Office. An interest in writing led to him submitting articles to various periodicals before becoming the dramatic journalist for the Sunday Times in 1863. The forthrightness of his opinions led to problems however, leading to the post lasting for only two years. In 1871 he became the dramatic critic for the Daily Telegraph, as well as writing numerous books and plays, and articles for various leading periodicals. He finally gave up his post at the War Office to concentrate fully on his writing in 1879.
In the years that followed Scott built up a regular following of readers eager to devour his reports on the latest theatrical productions involving their favourite performers, and if his no-holds-barred approach earned him few friends he was at least widely respected. At the height of his career Scott was widely recognised as being one of the two most eminent drama critics in the country - the other being his arch-rival, William Archer. In writing his reports, Scott pioneered a new essay style of reviewing that went to much greater depth than had previously been seen. As well as his regular columns in the Daily Telegraph, he began editing his own monthly magazine, The Theatre, which quickly acheived widespread circulation.
His standing with the public became such that he weilded great power and could make a substantial difference to the financial prospects of any theatrical production according to the quality of his review. His relationship with the theatrical profession, on the other hand, was rather more ambivalent and often strained. His 'from the hip' method of writing, jotting down his impressions as soon as he had seen the production and publishing them without further consideration or review, would often lead him into controversy. Furthermore, his insistence on always reviewing plays on the first night (unlike most other critics who would wait a few days) angered managers since first-night problems with new productions were not uncommon and, in their view, he was not, in effect, reviewing the play in its proper finished form.
Then too, as the years passed, Scott grew increasingly cantankerous and careless in considering the imprudence of his remarks. Perhaps it was the power he weilded as a result of his popular standing with the public that went that to his head, but all too often he began to allow his own personal animosities to show through and cloud his reviews so that he ceased to be the reliable guide he once had been. The unbiased neutrality began to fade and his outspoken personal criticisms of various actors and actresses would often lead to threats of legal action. His long running feud with fellow critic William Archer also reached new heights, with Scott wasting few opportunities to pour scorn upon his rival. He was also particularly scathing of the works of Henrik Ibsen, Archer's favourite.
But then, just when his career and reputation seemed to be at its highest, Scott forfeited it all through an act of extreme folly which alienated not only the theatrical profession but his reading public at large.
This came about when, around December 1897, he was requested by the evangelical weekly Great Thoughts to submit to an interview with editor Raymond Blathwayt on the subject of "Does the theatre make for good?" The result, which would be published in that periodical in full in it's January 1898 issue, was an extraordinary attack on the morals of the stage in general and stage-folk in particular - especially actresses. Not only did he impune the honour of these ladies in general, but, by saying that no woman who maintained her purity could ever be successful in a stage career, he implied that the leading actresses of the time were, of necessity, immoral and that they could only have acheived their station by virtue of their "compliances".
But even before the interview had appeared in the magazine for which it had been given, details of it's contents had fallen into the hands of the general press and it soon became apparent that on this occasion Scott had made a serious error of judgement - supplying his opponents with a wealth of ammunition to use against him. The Daily Mail in particular, the Telegraph's great rival, took great delight in fanning the flames, dredging up Scott's past indiscretions and encouraging performers to send in letters condemning the interview, details and extracts of which it gleefully published.
Scott was appalled by the unimagined storm of righteous indignation that, almost overnight, was whipped up against him. He would subsequently claim that his remarks were misunderstood and/or taken out of context, but many of his statements seemed quite clear and unequivocal - open to little other interpretation:
"It is really impossible for a woman to remain pure who adopts the stage as a profession."
"The drawbacks mentioned are things that render it impossible for a lady to remain a lady."
"a woman who endevours to keep her purity is almost of necessity foredoomed to failure in her career."
"I marvel at any mother who allows her daughter to take up a theatrical career."
Consequently, he was forced to publicly recant his remarks as being a temporary aberration. But the damage was already done. With theatre managers uniting to bar him from their premises and dozens of letters arriving at the Daily Telegraph every day demanding his discharge the newspaper was forced to dismiss him. He was subsequently re-hired when the furore died down, but his reputation had already been irreperably damaged. In 1899, he resigned and retired to Biarritz to complete his greatest literary work, The Drama of Yesterday and Today. He subsequently visited America and wrote some articles upon its stage affairs before returning to England and starting a paper which he called "The Free Lance" and which acheived only limited success.
There had been a time when a column of his writing could make a play an enormous success or damn it to oblivion, but now he found himself being largely dismissed. His health and finances deteriorated, and he soon he found himself fallen upon hard times. Remarkably, overlooking the injury that he had visited upon their profession, a brilliant company of actors came together, among them Sir Henry Irving, Beerbohm Tree, Julia Neilson, Madame Rejane and others, and staged a benefit for him at His Majesty's on 23rd June, 1904. He saw little benefit from the money raised for him however, as he passed away only two days later after a long illness.
In defence of Clement Scott over the Great Thoughts affair, the following are readily apparent:
Author: Don Gillan, www.stagebeauty.net.
Primary Sources: Various period publications.
Reproduce this article: This article is Copyright. You may, however, freely reproduce this article provided that a) it is not done for profit (including: incorporation in any compilation of materials produced for profit or on any paid access website), b) that it is reproduced in full and unaltered, and c) that you clearly credit the source, ie. "Reproduced courtesy of Don Gillan (Copyright), www.stagebeauty.net"